[744] Jamblichus, c, 255-259; Porphyry, c. 54-57; Diogen. Laërt. viii, 39; Diodor. x, Fragm. vol. iv, p. 56, Wess.

[745] Polyb. ii, 39; Plutarch, De Genio Socratis, c. 13, p. 583; Aristoxenus, ap. Jamblich. c. 250. That the enemies of the order attacked it by setting fire to the house in which the members were assembled, is the circumstance in which all accounts agree. On all other points there is great discrepancy, especially respecting the names and dates of the Pythagoreans who escaped: Boeckh (Philolaus, p. 9, seq.) and Brandis (Handbuch der Gesch. Philos. ch. lxxiii, p. 432) try to reconcile these discrepancies.

Aristophanês introduces Strepsiadês, at the close of the Nubes, as setting fire to the meeting-house (φροντιστήριον) of Sokratês and his disciples possibly the Pythagorean conflagration may have suggested this.

[746] “Pythagoras Samius suspicione dominatûs injustâ vivus in fano concrematus est.” (Arnobius adv. Gentes, lib. i, p. 23, ed. Elmenhorst.)

[747] Cicero, De Finib. v, 2 (who seems to have copied from Dikæarchus: see Fuhr. ad Dikæarchi Fragment. p. 55); Justin, xx, 4; Diogen. Laërt. viii, 40; Jamblichus, V. P. c. 249.

O. Müller says (Dorians, iii, 9, 16), that “the influence of the Pythagorean league upon the administration of the Italian states was of the most beneficial kind, which continued for many generations after the dissolution of the league itself.”

The first of these two assertions cannot be made out, and depends only on the statements of later encomiasts, who even supply materials to contradict their own general view. The judgment of Welcker respecting the influence of the Pythagoreans, much less favorable, is at the same time more probable. (Præfat. ad Theognid. p. xlv.)

The second of the two assertions appears to me quite incorrect; the influence of the Pythagorean order on the government of Magna Græcia ceased altogether, as far as we are able to judge. An individual Pythagorean like Archytas might obtain influence, but this is not the influence of the order. Nor ought O. Müller to talk about the Italian Greeks giving up the Doric customs and adopting an Achæan government. There is nothing to prove that Kroton ever had Doric customs.

[748] Aristotel. de Cœlo, ii, 13. οἱ περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν, καλούμενοι δὲ Πυθαγορεῖοι. “Italici philosophi quondam nominati.” (Cicero, De Senect. c. 21.)

[749] Heyne places the date of the battle of Sagra about 560 B. C.; but this is very uncertain. See his Opuscula, vol. ii, Prolus. ii, pp. 53, and Prolus. x, p. 184. See also Justin, xx, 3, and Strabo, vi, pp. 261-263. It will be seen that the latter conceives the battle of the Sagra as having happened after the destruction of Sybaris by the Krotoniates; for he states twice that the Krotoniates lost so many citizens at the Sagra, that the city did not long survive so terrible a blow: he cannot, therefore, have supposed that the complete triumph of the Krotoniates over the great Sybaris was gained afterwards.

[750] See above, vol. iii, chap. xxii.

[751] Diodor. xii, 9. Herodotus calls Têlys in one place βασιλῆα, in another τύραννον of Sybaris (v, 44): this is not at variance with the story of Diodorus.

The story given by Athenæus, out of Herakleidês Ponticus, respecting the subversion of the dominion of Têlys, cannot be reconciled either with Herodotus or Diodorus (Athenæus, xii, p. 522). Dr. Thirlwall supposes the deposition of Têlys to have occurred between the defeat at the Traeis and the capture of Sybaris; but this is inconsistent with the statement of Herakleidês, and not countenanced by any other evidence.

[752] Herodot. v, 47.

[753] Diodor. xii, 9; Strabo, vi, p. 263; Jamblichus, Vit. Pythag. c. 260; Skymn. Chi. v, 340.

[754] Herodot. v, 44.

[755] Diodor. xii, 9, 10; Strabo, vi, p. 263.

[756] Herodot. vi, 21; Strabo, vi, p. 253.

[757] Herodot. v, 45; Diodor. xii, 9, 10; Strabo, vi, p. 263. Strabo mentions expressly the turning of the river for the purpose of overwhelming the city,—ἐλόντες γὰρ τὴν πόλιν ἐπήγαγον τὸν ποταμὸν καὶ κατέκλυσαν. It is to this change in the channel of the river that I refer the expression in Herodotus,—τέμενός τε καὶ νηὸν ἐόντα παρὰ τὸν ξηρὸν Κρᾶθιν. It was natural that the old deserted bed of the river should be called “the dry Krathis:” whereas, if we suppose that there was only one channel, the expression has no appropriate meaning. For I do not think that any one can be well satisfied with the explanation of Bähr “Vocatur Crathis hoc loco ξηρὸς siccus, ut qui hieme fluit, æstatis vero tempore exsiccatus est: quod adhuc in multis Italiæ inferioris fluviis observant.” I doubt whether this be true, as a matter of fact, respecting the river Krathis (see my preceding volume, ch. xxii), but even if the fact were true, the epithet in Bähr’s sense has no especial significance for the purpose contemplated by Herodotus, who merely wishes to describe the site of the temple erected by Dorieus. “Near the Krathis,” or “near the dry Krathis,” would be equivalent expressions, if we adopted Bähr’s construction; whereas to say, “near the deserted channel of the Krathis,” would be a good local designation.

[758] Herodot. vi, 21.

[759] Herodot. v, 45.

[760] Herodot. v, 45. Τοῦτο δὲ, αὐτοῦ Δωριέος τὸν θάνατον μαρτύριον μέγιστον ποιεῦνται (Συβαρῖται), ὅτι παρὰ τὰ μεμαντευμένα ποιέων διεφθάρῃ. Εἰ γὰρ δὴ μὴ παρέπρηξε μηδὲν, ἐπ᾽ ᾧ δὲ ἐστάλη ἐποίεε, εἷλε ἂν τὴν Ἐρυκίνην χώρην καὶ ἑλὼν κάτεσχε, οὐδ᾽ ἂν αὐτός τε καὶ ἡ στρατιὴ διεφθάρῃ.

[761] Polyb. ii, 39. Heyne thinks that the agreement here mentioned by Polybius took place Olymp. 80, 3; or, indeed, after the repopulation of the Sybaritan territory by the foundation of Thurii (Opuscula, vol. ii; Prolus. x, p. 189). But there seems great difficulty in imagining that the state of violent commotion—which, according to Polybius, was only appeased by this agreement—can possibly have lasted so long as half a century; the received date of the overthrow of the Pythagoreans being about 504 B. C.

[762] Aristot. Politic. ii, 9, 6; iv, 9, 10. Heyne puts Charondas much earlier than the foundation of Thurii, in which, I think, he is undoubtedly right: but without determining the date more exactly (Opuscul. vol. ii; Prolus. ix, p. 160), Charondas must certainly have been earlier than Anaxilas of Rhêgium and the great Sicilian despots; which will place him higher than 500 B. C.: but I do not know that any more precise mark of time can be found.

[763] Diodorus, xii, 35; Stobæus, Serm. xliv, 20-40; Cicero de Legg. ii, 6. See K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griech. Staatsalterthümer, ch. 89; Heyne, Opuscul. vol. ii, pp. 72-164. Brandis (Geschichte der Röm. Philosophie, ch. xxvi, p. 102) seems to conceive these prologues as genuine.

The mistakes and confusion made by ancient writers respecting these lawgivers—even by writers earlier than Aristotle (Politic. ii, 9, 5)—are such as we have no means of clearing up.

Seneca (Epist. 90) calls both Zaleukus and Charondas disciples of Pythagoras. That the former was so, is not to be believed; but it is not wholly impossible that the latter may have been so,—or at least that he may have been a companion of the earliest Pythagoreans.

[764] Aristotel. Politic. ii, 9, 8. Χαρώνδου δ᾽ ἴδιον μὲν οὐδέν ἐστι πλὴν αἱ δίκαι τῶν ψευδομαρτύρων· πρῶτος γὰρ ἐποίησε τὴν ἐπίσκηψιν· τῇ δ᾽ ἀκριβείᾳ τῶν νόμων ἐστὶ γλαφυρώτερος καὶ τῶν νῦν νομοθετῶν. To the fulness and precision predicated respecting Charondas in the latter part of this passage, I refer the other passage in Politic. iv, 10, 6, which is not to be construed as if it meant that Charondas had graduated fines on the rich and poor with a distinct view to that political trick (of indirectly eliminating the poor from public duties) which Aristotle had been just adverting to,—but merely means that Charondas had been nice and minute in graduating pecuniary penalties generally, having reference to the wealth or poverty of the person sentenced.

[765] Πρῶτος γὰρ ἐποίησε τὴν ἐπίσκηψιν (Aristot. Politic. ii, 9, 8). See Harpokration, v. Ἐπεσκήψατο, and Pollux, viii, 33; Demosthenês cont. Stephanum, ii, c. 5; cont. Euerg. et Mnêsibul. c. 1. The word ἐπίσκηψις carries with it the solemnity of meaning adverted to it in the text, and seems to have been used specially with reference to an action or indictment against perjured witnesses: which indictment was permitted to be brought with a less degree of risk or cost to the accuser than most others in the Attic dikasteries, (Dêmosth. cont. Euerg. et Mn. l. c.)